Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Scott-Taggart


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

John Scott-Taggart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially unreferenced, no real notability ES  &#38;L  01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A simple Google search returns quite a large number of hits, plus also two book mentions. The subject seems to be of historical value, as evidenced if nothing else on the single link provided in the article. Here is his bio entry/authority control in the Library of Congress. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, yes he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but WP:SOLDIER is WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. OBE, MC, entry in Who's Who:, crashed his plane into the sea on Christmas Eve 1929 (as reported in the Times)... Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We have only just undeleted this poor chap. I'll be referencing and updating the article progressively over the next couple of weeks (I have to dig out the published articles on him)+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherers (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If Asa Briggs and Brian Hennesey thought him notable, that should be enough for the rest of us. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant here - that is really for career soldiers and those whose only claim to notability is in the fighting arm; his notability is as a technical expert in which capacity he served in the forces for part of his career, which his entirely different. --AJHingston (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The article needs wikifying and more detail. I would like to read more about "father of the transistor radio".  If true, that alone would make him notable; similarly oversight of radar in Britain in WWII.
 * Sorry forgot to sign this. Peterkingiron (talk)


 * Keep -- (A. Carty (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC))
 * trout nominator and keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The Hennesy and Brigs sources strongly suggest notability though they are not in depth and and only two. The article contained some serious WP:PUFF calling him a "father of wireless and radio" which no source even comes close to saying, and even if one source did it would not be enough to establish such a massive claim putting him alongside Marconi. In fact the sources seem to portray him as an authority in Britain on the "wireless valve" (whatever that is) and for his journalism work. The article should reflect what the sources say. Contrary to the wet trout, I think the nom was right to look at this one askew considering the condition it was in at the time and the incredulous claim "one of the fathers of wireless and transitor radios" completely unsourced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - and continue to fix it. An old aphorism goes, "AfD is not for cleanup." Bearian (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.